What is so wrong with making it easier for the community to express their free choice by giving them more options? If development indeed does decentralize as per the animation below, how is that a bad thing?
Multiple implementations of the consensus rules will elicit unplanned chain forks, and the chaos that would ensue.
If the probability of forking could be understood and made arbitrarily small, would you agree that multiple implementations were a positive think for Bitcoin?
I already agree that multiple implementations are a good thing; I use them. But you're being devious as usual, Peter: you don't mean "multiple implementations", you mean "different versions of consensus critical code". So I haven't answered your question directly (a dangerous proposition, bitkids).
This is clearly what you intend Peter; to kill Bitcoin with "kindness".
Do you really believe I am trying to kill Bitcoin?
Peter, your demonstration of sociopathy is genuinely disturbing to normal people. That you can so casually make statements like the above when the concealed intent of your behaviour is so poorly concealed is in itself concerning. It's incredibly obvious, and incredibly odious.
Are you sure you really want to continue with this Peter? What you're doing could possibly be analysed and remembered as a crucial part of early 21st century history. Are you up for the inevitable consequences that could stem from that? Considerable amounts of responsibility can be attributed to a picture of your face.
